Who Needs Holocaust?

By Israel
Shamir

Our good friend Gilad Atzmon proposed a
new idea, that the Anglo-Americans are particularly vile, and
that they need the Holocaust narrative to justify and persist
with their nastiness. In Gilad’s own words, “I believe that it
isn't the Jews who impose this Holocaust narrative. It is
actually the Anglo-Americans who need Auschwitz, just because it
allows them to kill in the name of freedom...” He stated it in
his
Re-Arranging the 20th Century: Allegro, non Troppo,
and in his interview to Lasse Wilhelmson, Gilad says: “I am
totally convinced that H isn't a Zio narrative. I put a major
blame on the Anglo-Americans”. Lasse asked him: “So the post war
imperialists created the H narrative to be able to use Zionism
ideologically and the Jews as a scapegoat?” Gilad replied: “…
Auschwitz allows the Anglo-American to kill in the name of
democracy”.

Now, I beg to disagree. This narrative is
Jewish, it belongs to Jews, and it has no meaning but as
manifestation of Jewish supremacy, as we shall explain below,
and it is not necessary to put it over on the much blamed
Anglo-Saxon. By creating the “Second Villain” (the
Anglo-Americans) Gilad sins against Ockham and multiplies
entries beyond necessity. Though Gilad wrote his text as an
exercise in dialectics, it can be utilised by less scrupulous
men as a “guilt-shifting”.

Gilad: But in fact, it isn’t Jews alone who
are capitalising on ‘Auschwitz the message’. It is in the shadow
of that very message that Americans allow themselves to kill
millions of innocent civilians in the name of democracy and
freedom.

Objection! The Americans kill Iraqis and
whoever else on behalf of their Jewish mind-benders and masters.
Thus is it still Jewry that “capitalises on Auschwitz the
message”. When the Americans killed Vietnamese and Cambodians,
or the Brits killed Kikuyu and Malays, they did not ever mention
the Polish village and its German-run camp. So they really do
not need this message in order to kill whoever they wish.

In order to sustain his thesis, Gilad
tries to prove that the Anglo-Americans did not care for Jews
during the war. He says:

The British Empire was reluctant to help
European Jews escape their doomed fate. It was Lord Bevin’s 1939
White Paper that stopped Jews from immigrating to Palestine when
danger for their lives was immanent.

Here Gilad repeats verbatim some Zionist
propaganda from Israeli high school. Not many people thought
that the European Jews were “doomed” at that time. One may read
the book by Shabtay Beit Zvi, <http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/Beitzvi.pdf>
based on the archives of the Jewish Agency to find out that the
Jewish leaders did not think so, nor in 1939, neither in 1942.
In the same 1939, all Polish Jews could find refuge in the
Soviet Union. Many did (like my father) and survived. Others,
like Elie Wiesel, preferred to go with Germans to escape the Red
Army.

Gilad reiterated: It was the RAF that
repeatedly dismissed the necessity of bombing Auschwitz.

Another go of Zionist propaganda. The camp
was perceived as an internment facility, attended by the Red
Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo). If
it were bombed, the internees would die – or as a result of the
bombing, or due to starvation for the supplies would not arrive.
Indeed, would Gilad advise to bomb Guantanamo? This idea of
“bombing Auschwitz” makes sense only if one accepts the vision
of “industrial extermination factory”, and it was formed only
well after the war.

Gilad: Roosevelt did very little to help
European Jews during the war. The American administration didn’t
change its immigration laws between 1933-45 in order to allow
mass immigration of European Jews into the USA.

Another Zionist bite. Why should the US
invite Jews, and not all other people who suffered under the
German occupation? Again, no reason at all, for the “doomed”
narrative of holocaust came into being much, much later.

Gilad exceeds himself by asserting that
Jews are the victims of the Holocaust Industry.

“It isn’t only the Palestinians who happen to
suffer from the politicisation and industrialisation of the
Holocaust personal narrative. Once the Holocaust had become ‘the
new Jewish religion’, it was the real, genuine victim who was
robbed of his own intimate personal biography. The very private
disastrous narrative has now become collective Jewish property.
The real singular Holocaust survivor, the one who lived the
horror, has been robbed of his very personal life experience. “

Forgive me for laughing instead of crying:
this “robbery” is the fate of a participant of every historical
event, be it a war, a revolution, a battle, or even a bout of
inflation. The public discourse displaces a personal narrative.
Monsieur de
La Palisse <http://www.miscellanees.com/c/palisse.htm > was
alive until he died.

The Jewish discourse is integrated as a
central part of Western consciousness. Furthermore, the West
needs the Jewish neurosis.

The West needs the Jewish neurosis like a
fish needs boots. The West managed fine without it, and it would
manage fine but it was forced by the Jews to swallow this
neurosis. We see there are non-Jewish elite forces that started
to use the great argument of Michael Neumann: John J.
Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University said that the Jewish designs
contradict the American Imperial Interests.

The two Gods, Holocaust and Democracy, are
cleverly set in a complementary relationship. The message is
clear: unless Democracy is in place, a Holocaust is inevitable.

This is a clear case of misunderstanding.
Just recently Hamas was democratically elected to rule
Palestine, and it was not approved by the US and Israel. Russia
had a democratically elected Parliament in 1993, but it was not
approved by the US and Israel. Belarus has a democratically
elected President but he is not approved by the US and Israel.
Thus, Democracy is not required: a regime should be approved by
the Jews. And no regime will be approved by the Jews, unless it
is controlled by the Jews. Thus we arrive to another truism:
unless a country is controlled by the Jews, a Holocaust is
inevitable. Or, even in simpler form: it is Yisrael, or Esau. If
Yisrael can’t control Esau, Esau will kill him. This is a
traditional Jewish point of view.

Though the baddies speak recently of
Democracy, it does not naturally mesh with the H narrative. If
you wish to decode the H message, it is rather an antidemocratic
message of Strauss and Hobbes, that the majority should be ruled
in and controlled by the wise and noble men. Democracy is
permitted (rather than ordered) if the disobedient [to the Jews]
parties are banned or marginalised, and the media and wealth are
concentrated in the Jewish hands.

The H’s message is anti-native, for H is a
crime the natives committed against the foreigners in their
midst. As non-Jewish elites are native, they have no need for
the H discourse. Indeed, similar crimes occurred in the colonial
context: the Black Hole of Calcutta, the story of mistreatment
of the Brits by the Indians in 1756, and the Haiti revolt of
Toussaint L’Ouverture when “the Haitian slaves executed all
Frenchmen they could find” <
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/HAITI.HTM>. In both cases,
they did not become central for the Western thought.

The last fault I find in Gilad’s texts is
philosophical one. He writes:

“The positivist school insisted that we
should become more scientific and far less philosophical. The
Vienna Circle, a group of [Jewish] philosophers and scientists,
aimed at eradicating any traces of metaphysics out of the body
of scientific knowledge. Logical positivism wasn’t just an
attack against emotional and spiritual expression, it was also a
clear offensive on German philosophy. … these three outlaws:
Irving, Zundel and Germar, the three rightwing historical
revisionists who happen to be locked behind bars, question the
validity of the personal narrative; foolishly they aim at
establishing a rational, dynamic, lucid empirically grounded
narrative based on forensic evidence. The three criminals are
applying logical-positivistic methods. Pathetically, they follow
the tradition of Carnap, Popper and the Vienna Circle. I wonder
whether they realise that they happen to follow an academic
tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school. Those ugly
revisionists are aiming at truth-values, correspondence rules,
empiricism.”

This is witty but all wrong. The
Logical-Positivist school was a Judaic attack formation in the
philosophical discourse aiming to emasculate the Christian
spirit. Science was just a cover for their purely religious and
metaphysical task: to de-spiritualise the West. Likewise, the
revisionists have religious and metaphysical tasks, even if they
use some scientific words and concepts. Jurgen Graf made it
clear in his important book, but the same was stated by Mahler,
Zundel and others. No, Gilad, they did not follow “an academic
tradition set by a Jewish secular Germanic school” but denied
it. Empiricism loaded their discourse with some least
interesting footnotes, but at its best, revisionism is a purely
metaphysical denial of Jew-worship.